Hi David,
‘Your’ logic is understandable, but it’s an opinion.
In my opinion (and not mine alone, since I have a lot of customers who do exactly this) it does not pay off to have someone fly in to sit next to you for a week or so.
In a small country like mine, not all languages are represented.
Papua-New Guinea alone has an estimated 832 different languages…
It is very common to go to a country, find a local interpreter and shoot interviews.
Editing then is done back home, with totally incomprehensible footage.
I myself edited Kazakh without any help other than a word doc that had to be edited in the same way as the timeline. It was horrible. (That was some 20 years ago, I had a M100 that had only two video tracks and one title track.)
(And no, I did not work on Borat.)
On the bright side, no-one was able to check if the final subs (that was done after the piece was finished) were accurate. But over here we have a policy to be as correct as possible.
Besides Trevor (Hi Trevor!), there are at least a couple of companies and broadcasters who do exactly this because it is cost efficient.
Having said that, I recently had a conversation with a director on the subject. He does research journalism, and touches sensitive points. His broadcaster has had several lawsuits. To avoid as much mess as possible, they have to be utterly correct, no matter what it takes.
Getting a decent transcript is way easier / cheaper than finding someone who speaks the language.
My 2 cents…
Bouke
http://www.videotoolshed.com